ejecutar_suite_pruebas_motor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavioral details: it runs in Headless mode and filters output to critical failures and clean stacktraces. It stops short of revealing potential side effects, prerequisites, or timeouts, but it goes well beyond a bare 'runs tests' statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds the filtering detail without redundancy. Every word carries meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three simple, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and output transformation. It is slightly light on expectations around what constitutes 'fallos críticos' or whether a success response is also returned, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about how projectPath, engine, or testMode are used, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Ejecuta') with a clear resource ('Test Runner nativo del motor') and mode ('Headless'), plus the output-filtering behavior. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like inspeccionar_jerarquia_escena or analizar_fugas_memoria_y_logs, which cover different concerns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied: the tool runs engine tests, so an agent would use it when tests need to be executed. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives, though the sibling tools are sufficiently different that confusion is unlikely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.